DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Management Study: Thames River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Management Study: Thames River Basin water management study thames river basin Ministry of the Ministry of Environment Natural Resources TORONTO ONTARIO 1975 The Ontario Ministries of the Environment and Natural Resources gratefully acknowledge permission from the Escher Foundation, Haags Gemeentemuseum, The Hague, Holland, to print M.G. Escher's work, "Three Worlds" on the cover of this report. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 CHAPTER 2 BASIN DESCRIPTION 9 2.1 Physiography 9 2.2 Drainage 9 2.2.1 Lower Thames 9 2.2.2 Upper Thames 10 2.2.3 Artificial Drainage 10 2.3 Geology 10 2.3.1 Surficial Geology 10 2.3.2 Bedrock Geology 10 2.4 Climate 11 2.5 Reservoirs 11 2.6 Land Use 12 2.6.1 Rural Land Use 12 2.6.2 Urban Land Use 13 2.6.3 Other 14 2.7 Population Patterns 15 2.8 Implications of Agricultural and Population Trends 16 CHAPTER 3 WATER AVAILABILITY 17 3.1 Surface Water 17 3.1.1 Peak Flows and Flooding 17 3.1.2 Low Flows 17 3.1.3 Ground Water Component of Streamflow 18 3.1.4 Low Flow Augmentation 19 3.2 Ground Water 19 3.2.1 Ground Water in the Overburden 19 3.2.2 Ground Water in the Bedrock 20 3.2.3 Water Level Fluctuations 20 3.2.4 Ground Water Chemistry 20 CHAPTER 4 WATER USES 21 4.1 Water Supply 21 4.1.1 Municipal 21 4.1.2 Industrial 21 4.1.3 Agricultural 23 4.2 Waste Disposal 23 4.2.1 Municipal 23 4.2.2 Industrial 23 4.2.3 Agricultural 25 4.3 Recreation 25 4.4 Fish and Wildlife 26 CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROGRAM 27 5.1 Phase 1 27 5.1.1 Water Resources 27 5.1.2 Water and Related Land Uses 28 5.1.3 Water Management 29 5.2 Phase 2 30 5.2.1 Region I 30 iii 5.2.2 Region 2 30 5.2.3 Region 3 31 5.2.4 Region 4 31 5.2.5 Region 5 32 5.3 Conclusions 32 CHAPTER 6 WATER RESOURCE PROBLEMS 34 6.1 Surface Water Quality Impairment 34 6.1.1 Nutrients 35 6.1.2 Oxygen Consuming Materials 37 6.1.3 Bacteria 38 6.1.4 Toxic Materials 38 6.1.5 Suspended Solids 39 6.1.6 Effects of Reservoirs on Water Quality 39 6.1.7 Evaluation of Water Quality by Stream Stretch 40 6.2 Flooding 43 6.2.1 Flood Damages 43 6.3 Erosion 44 6.3.1 Soil Erosion 44 6.3.2 Channel Erosion 44 6.4 Artificial Drainage 45 6.5 Water Supply Interference 45 6.6 Ground Water Quality Impairment 45 6.7 Use Conflicts in Reservoirs 46 6.8 Communication and Co-ordination Problems 46 CHAPTER 7 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS 47 7.1 Water Management Objectives 47 7.1.1 General Water Quality Objectives 47 7.1.2 Specific Water Quality Objectives 48 7.1.3 Flood Control Objectives 49 7.2 Water Resource Management Options 50 7.3 Other Water Management Considerations 50 7.3.1 Land Drainage Proposals 51 7.3.2 Water Supply Interference 51 7.3.3 Ground Water Quality Impairment 51 7.3.4 Communication and Co-ordination Proposal 51 7.4 Analysis of Major Water Management Options 52 7.4.1 Evaluation Criteria and Procedures 52 7.4.2 Costing 53 7.4.3 Evaluation of Options 54 7.4.4 Flood Control Benefit-Cost Analysis 54 7.4.5 London Sewage Disposal Options 55 7.5 Total System Cost Analysis 57 7.5.1 Least Cost Analysis 57 7.5.2 Evaluation of Non-Quantified Factors 59 7.5.3 Options Involving the Thamesford Reservoir 61 7.5.4 Options Excluding the Thamesford Reservoir 62 7.5.5 Summary 63 CHAPTER 8 APPLICATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS TO LOCAL AREAS 64 8.1 North Thames River 64 8.1.1 Mitchell 64 iv 8.1.2 Stratford 65 8.1.3 St. Marys; Campbell Soup Company 66 8.1.4 Wildwood Reservoir 67 8.1.5 Fanshawe Lake 67 8.2 Thames River Upstream from London 67 8.2.1 Tavistock 67 8.2.2 Gordon Pittock Reservoir 68 8.2.3 Woodstock 69 8.2.4 Beachville 71 8.2.5 Ingersoll 71 8.2.6 Dorchester 72 8.2.7 Thamesford 72 8.3 Thames River in the London Area 72 8.4 Lower Thames River 72 8.4.1 Thamesville, Bothwell, Wardsville and Melbourne 73 8.4.2 Westminster Township-Lambeth 73 8.4.3 Ilderton 73 8.4.4 Komoka-Kilworth 73 8.4.5 Glencoe 74 8.4.6 Newbury 74 8.4.7 Chatham 74 8.4.8 Tilbury 75 8.4.9 Ridgetown 75 REFERENCES 76 APPENDIX A WATER QUALITY MODELLING 78 Introduction 78 Dissolved oxygen model formulation 78 Model application—general 80 Avon River 81 North Thames River 83 Thames River from Woodstock to Ingersoll 85 Thames River in the vicinity of London 87 Thames River at Chatham 100 APPENDIX B DISSOLVED OXYGEN CRITERIA 102 APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 104 Urban options 104 Rural options 106 Reservoir options 106 APPENDIX D FLOOD CONTROL MODELLING 109 APPENDIX E FLOOD CONTROL OPTIONS 112 Structural methods 112 Non-structural methods 114 APPENDIX F COST ANALYSIS OF LONDON SERVICING OPTIONS 116 Sewage diversion 116 Tertiary treatment 117 Operation and maintenance cost 118 Discussion of cost estimates 119 Cost analysis for total system options 119 v Net cost calculation—an example 119 APPENDIX G NUTRIENT BUDGET 121 APPENDIX H SEWAGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR THE CITY OF LONDON 126 Improve effluent treatment 126 Additional flow augmentation 128 Treat storm water runoff 128 Improved background quality 130 Divert sewage to Lake Erie 130 In-stream aeration 130 Discussion of options 130 Waste loading guidelines 130 Staging of construction options 131 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page FIGURE 6.1 Effect of urban and agricultural activities on aesthetics and fisheries in the Thames River basin 34 FIGURE A1 Thames River water quality simulation model 80 FIGURE A2 Maximum and minimum measured dissolved oxygen concentrations— versus time of travel for Avon River, June 1972 81 FIGURE A3 Nutrient concentration versus distance in Avon River, June 1972 82 FIGURE A4 Minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations predicted for Station 5 on the Avon River 2.6 miles downstream from Stratford STP at various natural flows and effluent waste loading rates 83 FIGURE A5 Maximum and minimum measured dissolved oxygen concentrations versus time of travel for North Thames River, June 1971 84 FIGURE A6 Maximum and minimum measured dissolved oxygen concentrations versus time of travel for the Thames River downstream from Woodstock, July 1972 86 FIGURE A7 Minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations predicted for two locations in the Thames River downstream from Woodstock at various effluent waste loading rates 86 FIGURE A8 Minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations predicted for the Thames River, 2.5 miles downstream from Ingersoll (Station J), at various effluent waste loading rates 88 FIGURE A9 Thames River water quality simulation model —Geometry of river systems 89 FIGURE A10 Maximum and minimum measured dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Thames River, August 13-16, 1973 90 FIGURE A11 All Probability distribution of NOD and CARBOD in the final effluent of Greenway STP 92 FIGURE A12 Thames River water quality simulation model—dissolved oxygen output summary in the month of July, Run 2 "Dam Operation" 94 FIGURE A13 Thames River water quality simulation model—dissolved oxygen output summary in the month of July, Run 4 "Greenway Treatment Plus Dam Operation" 95 FIGURE A14 Thames River water quality simulation model—dissolved oxygen output summary in the month of July, Run 6 "Zero Pollutants Plus Dam Operation" 96 FIGURE A15 Thames River water quality simulation model—dissolved oxygen output summary in the month of July, Run 5 "Greenway Treatment Plus Additional Flow Augmentation" 97 FIGURE A16 Thames River water quality simulation model—dissolved oxygen output summary in the month of July, Run 10 "Diversion of All Sewage to Lake Erie" 99 FIGURE A17 Maximum and minimum measured dissolved oxygen concentrations versus time of travel in the Thames River downstream from Chatham, September 1971 101 FIGURE A18 Minimum dissolved oxygen predicted at Station 2, 2.75 miles downstream from vi Chatham STP, at various effluent waste loading rates 101 FIGURE D1 Simplified seasonal reservoir operating schedule 111 FIGURE G I Thames River nutrient budget—sub-basin designation 122 FIGURE H I Projected sewage dilution ratios at low flow in the Thames River downstream from the City of London 129 LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 2.1 Physical data at normal operating levels for Wildwood, Fanshawe and Pittock reservoirs 11 TABLE 2.2 Large livestock operations in the Thames River basin in 1971 13 TABLE 2.3 Designated urban land uses 1971 14 TABLE 2.4 Existing urban land use in acres and percent of total urban area 14 TABLE 2.5 Estimated population for urban and rural areas, 1971-2001 15 TABLE 4.1 Existing surface water uses 22 TABLE 4.2 Municipal waste treatment facilities 24 TABLE 6.1 Summary of the nutrient budget— Thames River 36 TABLE 7.1 Flood control benefit-cost evaluation 54 TABLE 7.2 Marginal flood control benefit-cost evaluation 55 TABLE 7.3 London waste loading guidelines 56 TABLE 7.4 Total system net cost 58 TABLE 7.5 Summary of cost analysis for system options at a 4 percent discount rate in 1975 dollars 58 TABLE 7.6 Ranking in net cost order of options including the Thamesford dam 61 TABLE 7.7 Ranking in net cost order of options excluding the Thamesford dam 62 TABLE 8.1 Monthly contribution of phosphorus from the Stratford sewage treatment plant relative to the overall burden in the Avon River at its mouth 65 TABLE A1 Thames River simulation—water quality input description of probability distributions and mean sewage flows 88 TABLE A2 Comparison of average means and standard deviations of daily streamflows at Fanshawe, Ealing and Byron flow gauges 90 TABLE A3 Thames River simulation model, summary of input combinations 91 TABLE A4 Average daily sewage flow rates used in the Thames River simulation model 92 TABLE B1 Dissolved oxygen criteria 103 TABLE D1 Summary of storage allocations for existing and proposed reservoirs in the Thames River
Load more

Recommended publications
  • One River Master Plan Environmental Assessment Study
    Environmental Assessment Study 3. Study Area Existing Conditions 3.1 Natural Environment The Thames River, which flows through the City of London, is one of the largest river systems in Southern Ontario. The North and South Branches of the Thames River converge near the City’s downtown area at a location commonly referred to as “the Forks”. The Thames River was recognized as a Canadian Heritage River in 2000, and is acknowledged to be a river of great natural, cultural, and recreational importance. The river plays a significant role in the lives of people in the City of London (Dillon et al., 2011). The Thames River watershed lies within in the Carolinian Zone (Eco Region 7E), which extends through southern Ontario from Toronto to Windsor. This ecozone is the most populated zone in Canada, containing 25% of the Canadian population in only 0.25 percent of the Canada’s land mass. The Carolinian Zone hosts more species than any other region in Canada (Carolinian Canada Coalition, 2016), including many endangered and threatened species. Ongoing conservation measures, and expanding urban populations and development makes this zone unique for governance and regulatory agencies. An overview and description of the natural environment conditions in the One River Study Area are detailed in the River Characterization (Appendix A-1) and Natural Heritage Summary (Appendix A-2) reports. Information for these reports was gathered from previous environmental studies completed by the City, UTRCA and other consultants. To supplement existing data for the One River EA, localized environmental field programs focusing on the river and aquatic environment were completed in 2017 and 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • UTRCA-Approved Budget 2019
    March 19, 2019 Page 1 of 29 20192019 APPROVED BUDGET February 21, 2019 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Clarke Road, London, ON N5V 5B9 / 519-451-2800 / [email protected] / www.thamesriver.on.ca March 19, 2019 Page 2 of 29 2019 UTRCA Approved Budget February 21, 2019 The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2019 than simply “maintain.” The Environmental Targets represent Approved Budget (expenditures) is forecast at $20,940,779. an organizational commitment to achieve measurable This total is split between operating expenses ($15,744,571) improvements in our watershed’s health. This in turn supports and capital ($5,196,208). economic development, human health, and makes the watershed more attractive and resilient. The Environmental Key influences on the 2019 Budget include: Targets are aggressive but realistic. The UTRCA has the tools, experience, expertise and relationships to achieve these 1. Continued Implementation of the UTRCA’s Environmental Targets. Funding needed to support this work is also significant; Targets Strategic Plan however, given partner support and a phased approach to The Board of Directors Environmental Targets: implementation, the plan is practical and achievable. approved a new Environmental Strategic Plan Targets Strategic Plan in June June 2016 For 2019, a total of $288,130 in new levy funding has been 2016. The Plan represents included for this, the third year of the proposed four year the most significant funding phase-in. This new revenue is needed to support water programming change in the quality improvements and the expansion of natural cover in UTRCA’s nearly 70 year history the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Your Local Conservation Authorities
    Introduction to Your Local Conservation Authorities Elizabeth VanHooren Conservation AuthorSty Jerry Campbell Presentation Overview: 1 Part of the collection of 36 Conservation Authorities in Ontario *Local CAS Conservation Authorities Act- 1946 Founding Principles 1. Watershed Jurisdiction _.7 Shared Costs 3. Local Initiative 2 r Why Watershed Jurisdiction? Pros: - Allows for management of the entire surface water system - There is always someone downstream - water doesn't respect political boundaries - Sense of commitment to the overall system Cons: - Difficult for municipalities and the public to grasp - Municipalities split by watersheds Shared Costs Originally 50% Provincial - 50 % Municipal Mid 90s Shift - withdrawal of Provincial share More municipal investment needed Diversification of revenues has been required 3 Local Initiative Local municipalities have to request a conservation authority UTRCA formed in 1947, KCCA in 1965, LTVCA in 1961 Municipalities have representatives on the Board of Directors Board sets overall policy direction: - Responsive to local issues and concerns - Meet on a monthly basis - Day to day operations by staff within the overall policy set by the Board Municipal representation is calculated on the basis of population * Outlet of Upper Thames River Watershed Headwaters for Kettle Creek and Lower Thames 4 What We Do: 1. Protect life and property fror flood and erosion. 2. Protect and enhance water qua I ity . 3. Protect and manage natura areas. 1. Protect Life and Property from Flood and Erosion Dams and Dykes- Fanshawe Dam, Wildwood Dam, Pittock Dam, West London Dykes, etc. Have protected London from what would have been devastating floods for over 50 years 6 significant flood disasters averted > $100 million in structure replacement value on-going need for capital maintenance, repair and adaptation to new standards resulting from climate 5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Doug Bocking, M.D. John Eberhard, Q.C. Dear Sirs, The
    Cathy Saunder City of London [email protected] Springbank Dam Restoration For the agenda for March 8th. From: Dr. Doug Bocking, M.D. John Eberhard, Q.C. Dear Sirs, The following is a submission in support of the restoration of the Springbank Dam and the Back to the River Agenda of City Council Table of Contents: 1. Executive Summery 2. Back to the River 3. Personal Stories 4. Rebuild London 5. Forks Renewal 6. River and Dam History and Heritage 7. River Dam (Weir) History and Definition 8. Springbank Weir Chronology (LFP – June 17, 2015) 9. Heritage Values 10. Recreational History 11. Environmental Concerns 12. Testing and Statistics. 13. Environmental Assessment 14. Results – The Science of the River 15. Impact of weirs as noted by Advocacy Groups 16. Multi-Purpose Results of Restoration 17. Political Commitments and Public Policy 18. Conclusion: Appendix: Academic Journals related to the River Conclusions from the 2000-2012 Canadian Heritage River System Report” Executive Summery The issue of whether to repair or decommission the Springbank dam has become a discussion point in our community. Every year for decades, thousands of London citizens have impatiently waited for spring and the chance to launch their canoe in the “lake” at Springbank. The imaginative plan to return the Forks of the Thames River needs to address our entire multi-cultural heritage, values and vision. We salute the City and its leadership for the thoughtful way they have incorporated the Thames into this initiative. The revival of the city core can only happen with the restoration of the dam at Springbank.
    [Show full text]
  • Fanshawe Dam & Reservoir
    Fanshawe Dam & Reservoir Aerial view of Fanshawe Dam and Reservoir during the December 2008 flood. The Thames River has been a focus for human activity for measures such as dykes and channels, were to be operated in centuries. Native peoples and the early European settlers relied an integrated manner to prevent flood damage throughout the on the river as a source of abundant resources and as a corridor river system. for travelling through the forests that covered Southern Ontario. Since Fanshawe Dam began operating in 1953, the UTRCA The first settlements along the river were small and transitory, has built two more large flood control dams: Wildwood Dam, on but soon grew to take on a more permanent nature. As human Trout Creek near St. Marys, and Pittock Dam, near Woodstock activity near the water increased, it was affected more and more on the South Thames River. The other five recommended dams by the seasonal fluctuations of the Thames. may never be built because of the development of alternatives The normally placid Thames was periodically subject to to these costly and environmentally disruptive structures. severe flooding which disrupted the new communities built Today, rather than attempting to keep the floodwaters of the in the river’s extensive floodplains. The first written account river away from the people who have moved into the floodplain of flooding after European settlement on the Thames River areas, the UTRCA works to keep human development away dates from 1791 and floods of various levels were recorded from the river, to leave the floodplain available to the Thames.
    [Show full text]
  • November 20, 2019 Page 1 of 3
    November 20, 2019 Page 1 of 3 From: [email protected] To: Amy Humphries; Ann Wright; Brent Kittmer; Carla Preston; Cathy Saunders; Chloe Senior; Dan Best; David Creery; Don MacLeod; Jeff Brick; Joan Thomson; Julie Forth; Karen DePrest; Karen Martin; Kyle Kruger; Lizet Scott; Martin Hayward; Mary Ellen Greb; Michael Di Lullo; Michael Graves; Peter Crockett; Rebecca Clothier; Rebekah Msuya- Collison; Roger Mordue; Ron Reymer; Stewart Findlater; Tatiana Dafoe; Tena Michiels; Theresa Campbell; Tiffany Farrell; Will Jaques; William Tigert Cc: Alan Dale; Alex Westman; [email protected]; Anna Hopkins; Annamarie Murray; Brian Petrie; Christine Saracino; Don Edmiston; Grant Inglis; Hugh McDermid; Jim Reffle; Joe Salter; Liridona Rafuna; Alex Shivas; Brad Glasman; Chris Harrington; Chris Tasker; Ian Wilcox; Jennifer Howley; Teresa Hollingsworth; Tracy Annett; Marie Blosh; Mark Schadenberg; Nancy Manning; Paul Mitchell; Sandy Levin; Tony Jackson Subject: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 2020 Draft Budget Date: Thursday, October 31, 2019 1:25:08 PM Attachments: ATT00001 Levy-Nov-notification-2020.pdf Municipal CAOs, Clerks and Treasurers, Re: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2020 Draft Budget Status Provincial funding and legislative uncertainties have complicated the UTRCA’s 2020 budget development. As a result, a draft budget approved by the UTRCA Board of Directors will not be available for circulation to municipalities until early December. However, in the interim, the Board has approved a 2020 draft municipal levy and it is attached for your information and use in developing your own municipal budgets. The UTRCA Board of Directors deliberated fully the implications of a municipal levy increase for 2020 and worked to balance the objectives and priorities of the UTRCA with attention to the fiscal realities we all face in terms of reduced provincial transfer payments and uncertainties regarding provincial grants.
    [Show full text]
  • The Thames River Watershed: a Background Study for Nomination Under the Canadian Heritage Rivers System 1 9 9 8
    Canadian Heritage Rivers System The Thames River Watershed: A Background Study for Nomination under the Canadian Heritage Rivers System 1 9 9 8 The Canadian Heritage Rivers System T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S i The Thames River Watershed: A Background Study for Nomination under the Canadian Heritage Rivers System 1998 Written by the Thames River Background Study Research Team Published by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority for the Thames River Coordinating Committee Principal Authors: Ian Wilcox Introduction and Conclusion Cathy Quinlan Natural Heritage Cathy Rogers Human Heritage Michael Troughton Human Heritage, Pre-contact Ian McCallum First Nations Heritage Andrea Quenneville Recreation Eleanor Heagy Editing Don Dool Layout and Graphics Copies of this report may be obtained from: The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Clarke Road, London Ont. N5V 5B9 Phone: (519) 451-2800 Fax: (519) 451-1188 E-mail: [email protected] Web Site: http://www.thamesriver.org Copyright © Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1998 ISBN 1-894329-00-7 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S i Acknowledgments The Thames River Background Study is the product of a large team of agencies, community groups and individuals. As with any community based project, there is rarely time or space to adequately thank all who have offered their time, finances and writing and editorial skills. In light of this, the Background Studies Subcommittee for the Thames River Nomina- tion extends a blanket thank-you to all who contributed to this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Areas
    1424 Clarke Road, London, ON N5V 5B9 519-451-2800 2021 [email protected] Draft Budget www.thamesriver.on.ca November 2020 2021 UTRCA Draft Budget November 2020 The UTRCA’s 2021 Draft Budget has been significantly 2021. The formula uses MPAC’s Current Value Assessment of influenced by the on-going COVID-19 Pandemic. The impacts municipal properties within each CA’s jurisdiction to calculate during 2020 on demand for services and on revenues have proportional costs. 2021 again sees the funding burden shift to been unprecedented and are expected to continue into 2021. rural municipalities as the value of farmland has increased faster The Draft Budget as presented foregoes strategic initiatives than other land use types. This shift in funding is beyond the (Environmental Targets), some capital investment, and service UTRCA’s ability to control but does create frustration among our growth needs, and instead presents a maintenance budget rural municipalities as their levy increases are inflated relative that respects economic constraints imposed on municipalities, to other municipalities. contract funders, and individuals by the pandemic. This budget recommendation focuses on immediate financial challenges at 5. Salary Review/Reorganization: the expense of the organization’s long term strategic goals. The Staff retention is a key management priority at the UTRCA. implications of this approach include the following: Reduced staff turn-over benefits the organization through employment of experienced staff, return on investment in 1. Environmental Targets Strategic Plan: staff training, and fewer disruptions to work flow. The last The UTRCA’s Strategic Plan (2016) recommends significant and formal salary review was completed in 2006 and, while the planned service growth to support the achievement of specific organizational structure has been tweaked over time, there are environmental targets by 2037.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Board of Directors Has Reviewed Your May 9, 2018 Letter and List of Questions and Offers the Following in Response
    September 12, 2018 Page 1 of 44 June 22, 2018 NOTICE OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2018 TIME: 9:30 A.M – 11:20 A.M LOCATION: WATERSHED CONSERVATION CENTRE BOARDROOM AGENDA: TIME 1. Approval of Agenda 9:30am 2. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting: Tuesday May 22, 2018 4. Business Arising from the Minutes 9:35am (a) Response letter to St. Marys Council (I.Wilcox)(Doc: #119956 ) (Letter attached)(5 minutes) 5. Business for Approval 9:40am (a) 2019 Budget Concepts (I.Wilcox)(Doc: #120014) (Report attached)(10 minutes) (b) 20 Year Flood Control Capital Plan (D.Charles)(Doc: FC #1310) (Report attached)(5 minutes) (c) Proposed "Expression of Interest (EOI)" Application for the "Disaster Mitigation & Adaption Fund (DMAF)" (C.Tasker)(Doc: FC #1311) (Report attached)(10 minutes) (d) Board Meeting Transparency Progress Report (I.Wilcox)(Doc: Admin # 2901) (Report attached)(10 minutes) September 12, 2018 Page 2 of 44 6. Closed Session – In Camera 10:15am (a) Glengowan Dam Update (I. Wilcox)(Doc: #120026) (Report attached)(5 minutes) (b) Matter pertaining to FCA Cottage Program (J. Howley) (Doc: CA #4591) (Report attached)(20 minutes) (c) City of Woodstock/Pittock Day Use Area Update (J.Howley)(Doc: CA #4603) (Report attached)(5 minutes) 7. Business for Information 10:45am (a) Administration and Enforcement - Section 28 (T. Annett) (Doc: ENVP #6042) (Report attached)(5 minutes) (b) Pioneer Village Update (S.Dunlop)(Report attached) (5 minutes) (c) Oxford County Council Letter Re: Burgess Park (B.Hertner)(Doc: #120051) (Report attached)(5 minutes) (d) Update for the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
    December 18, 2019 Page 1 of 24 2020 DRAFT BUDGET Upper Thames River Conservation Authority November 2019 1424 Clarke Road, London, ON N5V 5B9 / 519-451-2800 / [email protected] / www.thamesriver.on.ca December 18, 2019 Page 2 of 24 2020 UTRCA Draft Budget November 2019 The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority’s (UTRCA) 2020 Draft Budget serves as both a management and governance tool. It is prepared on the basis of expenses inclusive of depreciation, and all deferred revenues which may be available for use in the year in order to clearly see the funding positions of all programs. The current funding environment in which the UTRCA operates requires ever-increasing levels of scrutiny as well as an attitude best described as ‘contingency.’ Funding uncertainty also requires flexibility and multiple scenario evaluation. In summary, the 2020 draft operating budget expenses are estimated at $15,890,487, representing a 1.9% decrease from 2019. ‘Transfers from reserves’ have been specifically avoided as a way to balance our costs in 2020 to ensure transparency; the result is a $376,054 deficit in operations. 3. Downloaded Provincial Cut: The operating budget includes $1,221,973 of non-cash During 2019, the UTRCA absorbed the $169,802 of in-year depreciation expenses as well. These annual depreciation costs provincial funding cuts rather than create a special levy. In 2020, - the consumption of asset values - is greater than the projected that value is included in the municipal levy as it supports critical deficit. As a result, while an operating deficit is anticipated on flood control efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 1 1 Introduction
    Watershed Characterization Report Thames Watershed & Region (Upper Thames River & Lower Thames Valley Source Protection Areas) Volume 1 1 Introduction 2 Watershed Description 2.1 Source Protection Region 2.2 Physical Description 2.3 Hydrology & Climate 2.4 Naturally Vegetated Areas 2.5 Aquatic Ecology 2.6 Human Characterization 2.7 Water Uses Volume 2 3 Water Quality 3.1 Selecting Indicator Parameters 3.2 Raw Water Characterization for Inland Surface Water 3.3 Groundwater Quality 3.4 Raw Water Characterization for Drinking Water Intakes 3.5 Data and Knowledge Gaps for Water Quality Volume 3 4 Water Quantity 4.1 Water Use 4.2 Data and Knowledge Gaps for Water Use 5 Description of Vulnerable Areas 5.1 Identification of Source Protection Areas 5.2 Groundwater: Aquifer Vulnerability, Wellhead Protection Areas & Potential Drinking Water Sources 5.3 Surface Water: Intake Protection Zones 6 Existing Drinking Water Threats Inventories 6.1 Threats to Water Quality 6.2 Known Water Quality Issues 6.3 Data and Knowledge Gaps for Existing Drinking Water Threats Inventories 7 Summary of Identified Issues and Concerns Appendices A: Data Gap Reporting B: List of Acronyms C: Significant Natural Areas and Wetlands (UTRCA) D: References Watershed Characterization Report – Thames Watershed & Region - Volume 1 i Thames Watershed & Region Maps Map 1: Thames-Sydenham & Region Source Protection Region Map 2: Major Subwatershed Delineations Map 3: Bedrock Topography Map 4: Bedrock Geology Map 5: Overburden Thickness Map 6: Surficial Geology Map 7: Physiography
    [Show full text]
  • Watercourse Dams Stream Flow Such As Small Dams, Seaforth Perched Culverts, and Inline Weirs and Barriers Can Influence Surface Water Quality
    Map Notes Clinton Map 22 Barriers and other impediment to Bayfield Milverton Watercourse Dams stream flow such as small dams, Seaforth perched culverts, and inline weirs and Barriers can influence surface water quality. Mitchell Dam Cr. " Whirl Watershed Characterization Report Wildwood and Pittock dams are Mitchell R.T. Orr Dam WATERLOO large structures that provide both River PERTH Thames Watershed & Region flood control and flow HURON ! (Upper Thames River & Lower Thames augmentation, with a side benefit Lake ! Cr. Valley Source Protection Areas) Black River " ! of recreational opportunities. Flat " !" New Hamburg Huron C Exeter es r Avon Stratford . am Fanshawe Dam is primarily for Th ! Wildwood Dam Tavistock Legend flood control and provides the Grand Bend ! side benefits of recreation. ! !Cr." ! ! " Trout Thames Watershed & Region Mitchell Dam and R.T. Orr Dam !Fish St. Marys " ! C " Port Franks r. ! ! are generally used to create ! ! artificial lakes in their ! Thames Watershed Boundary communities. Lucan River North "! ! Parkhill ! ! ! Pittock Dam Fanshawe Dam ! es !!! The Indian/McGregor Creek am " Municipal Boundaries ! Th ! Dam located in Chatham is ! ! !! !Cedar Woodstock Medw !!!! ! designed to protect the south part Forest ! Thorndale OXFORD Cr. ay C !!!! !!River ! Type r. es of the community from cresting MICHIGAN ! Middle am " Th flood waters in the Thames MIDDLESEX ! ! Thamesford !!!" ! River. The dam is closed when !! " Cr. !!!! Barrier/Small Dam Structure !"! Cr. ! Cr. th Ingersoll flood level flows come down Coldstream Waubuno !Sou Pottersburg " from the upper Thames Sarnia Oxbow ! !! ! ""!!!! Significant Dam Structure !! " ! Dorchester watershed. !!!! ! Watford " Wyoming Strathroy Komo!ka London ! ! Reynolds C Watercourse Information ! Due to the complexity of the !! ! ! Dingman Cr.
    [Show full text]